Vtlf 



7 



519 
\ 

>y 1 



NEUTRALITY 



UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW 



AND 



THE WILSONIAN HERESY 



AMERICA OR CHINA 



A Letter to Hiram Freeborn, U. S. A. 



Note : — In answer to inquiries. Mr. Freeborn will be found living on any 
hill in New England (or plain in the West), he has also residences in Penn- 
sylvania, Maryland and the South, a bungalow on the Pacific slope and a 
tent in Alaska ; in addition, he can be reached at other places within the 
United States Post Office area. 



$ 



(^ 

^ 



A WORM WILL TURN. 

"And if, when all the mischief's done 
You watch their dying squirms 
And listen, ere their breath be run 
You'll hear them sigh : 
Oh clumsy one ! — and devil blame the worms." 

C. S. Calverly. 

March 31st, 1915. 

Hiram Freeborn, Esq., 
U. S. A. 

Dear Hiram : — 

Before answering your questions let me premise 
that you appear to be one of those "little men 
who rock the boat'' ; also that there seem to be so 
very many of you that the boat is likely to be 
rocked sufficiently to pitch out certain calm but 
stubborn and unversed pilots whose services hav- 
ing been engaged by a minority of the crew have 
resulted in the occasion for those very inquiries of 
yours to which it is a duty to reply. 

You doubtless remember that old codger, years 
ago in the village, who was wont when local 
circumstances appeared to demand it, to shake his 
head and give forth some not inapposite senten- 
tious apothegm or another. One, which attracted 
favorable attention, seems again of value. It was 
simple and comprehensive. "Eddication without 
experiuns makes fools of menny." As a nation we 
appear to be served by an educated but inexperi- 
enced pilot — at least he has said so in good round 
terms on more than one occasion — and this has had 
not unnatural results. 



But to take up your questions : 

There is, on considerate reflection, a certain un- 
pleasant resemblance in the general attitude which 
we have latterly taken toward our international 
position and relations, to the position which has 
been the accompaniment of the decadence of China. 
The statement will doubtless be rejected at first 
blush as preposterous, but, upon that reflection 
thereon which I urge, there will arise a willingness 
to further consider the proposition: and further 
consideration will bring appreciation of resem- 
blances and tendencies which might not at the out- 
set have been apparent. The spirit of commercial- 
ism — mere commercialism, not world trade, and 
not aggression in the commercial field, but mere 
"commercialism" — has grown greatly and rapidly 
in this country. It is the concomitant of republican 
institutions under which, necessarily, there are no 
class distinctions wherefore relative position comes, 
more and more, to be measured by possession of 
material resources. All aspects of life come to be 
measured by the one standard. That evasive qual- 
ity which develops most rapidly under feudalism — 
as with the nations of Continental Europe during 
and after the middle ages and Japan until re- 
cently — known as "a punctilious sense of honor", 
tends to disappear. There follows not alone disin- 
clination to material sacrifice for any ideal but 
gradual spread of the doctrine that any evil should 
be endured rather than that one should suffer the 
expense and trouble which may arise from what 
is characterized as a jealous resentment of any in- 
vasion of or encroachment upon one's rights — na- 
tional or individual. The spirit represented in the 
phrase "millions for defence and not one cent for 



tribute" is gradually lost, The many advantageous 
aspects of the pursuit of gain, though pursued only 
under such conditions of tranquility, and no more, 
as it may suit the rapacity or desire of others to 
permit, enforce themselves first on the individual, 
then upon the mass. These tendencies are ever 
present to a commercial republic. Therefore it 
behooves that those in temporary authority at each 
given time therein should voice a higher ideal, to 
offset their effect and preserve a just balance. 
Has such been the case with us? Such has not been 
the case in China these several hundred years and 
for the reason that commercialism grew therein to 
the extent that whosoever her temporary rulers 
have been at any time, they have been of the com- 
mercial class in the sense of being merely commer- 
cially minded. The huge non-resistent bulk of 
China with its great, industrious population, 
through its adoption of the doctrines of non-resist- 
ence has therefore afforded but too easy and too 
tempting a prey to the cupidity of the whole world. 
Will such be the result here? Should the doctrines 
which have been advocated and followed during the 
past two years be continued in succeeding ones we 
might answer easily in the affirmative. Many have 
smiled at the humorous aspect of the sentiment em- 
bodied in the phrase, "Peace if we have to fight for 
it." But its true meaning: — that in this world as 
at present constituted, no "Peace" which has not 
been won by contest and is not prepared to be de- 
fended by force is a "Peace" which will continue or 
one which, in the end, will be worth having — should 
redeem the phrase from derision. 

Note here that the only "peace'' which exists in 
any country in the world to-day is actively main- 



tained from day to day by a vast army of "Peace 
Officers", constables and policemen — trained, 
armed, authorized to kill and killing, daily — 
backed up in every country by the army as need may 
on occasion arise. How can it be otherwise — so 
long as man is human and while each new born 
generation must learn anew— except through the 
slow course of interminable years of improvement. 
Also how can it be otherwise as to the nations taken 
collectively than it is in each nation separately. No 
"peace" ever has existed nor for centuries will exist 
and be of enduring character where force has not 
been or will not be its foundation. Neither has any 
freedom — the basis of all "peace" — ever been won 
save through conflict and by strife. It is a part of 
the progress of evolution — slow but continuous — 
impossible of being hurried but readily retarded by 
unwise effort unsuitably to advance. 

Nor do these statements import warlike views or 
inclinations. Very much to the contrary. All 
reasonable persons look confidently to the ultimate 
establishment of the United States of the World : to 
the maintaining by an International Police, not of 
Perpetual Peace — for the world is peopled with 
human beings — but of Perpetual General Order and 
to the reign of Universal International Justice. 
Most quickly to be attained by enforcing the doc- 
trine of Mutual International Respect not by su- 
pinely submitting to aggression. Unfortunately 
the conduct, by the present administration, of our 
Foreign Department ( misnamed the Department of 
State) for the past two years, when reviewed as a 
whole, is by no means encouraging to those so be- 
lieving: to the true lovers of Peace. The life of 
no individual American citizen has been worth 



defence, the property of no individual American 
citizen has been worth protection, the rights of no 
American citizen, as also the rights of America, as 
well in the present clash between foreign powers 
as in internecine strife in Mexico have neither been 
asserted rightly nor maintained stoutly. Inci- 
dentally the "Flag" (regarded among nations as 
typifying that nation of which it may be the em- 
blem) lias been insulted with impunity on more oc- 
casions and by more peoples during the past two 
years than I believe in any thirty years before.* 
Speaking purely "commercially'' — which appears 
to be the point of view from which the present ad- 
ministration regards all these questions — this will 
not "pay." Such course, persisted in, will cost 
more in money, more in lives, more in territory and 
more in all material resources within the next 
twenty years than will have been saved and this by 
an hundred thousand times over. With such a 
record behind us and if we continue to pursue such 
a course, what would happen to this country, to the 
Panama Canal, to the Philippines and incidentally 
to the Monroe Doctrine, as soon as Germany re- 
cuperated, in the — fortunately for us impossible — 
event of her prevailing in the present "German 
War." W T e have given Germany since the first of 
last August example after example of the amount 
of infringement upon our national and individual 
rights to which we are prepared to submit rather 
than by any possibility take a stand which would 
earn her displeasure and then maintain such stand. 
Why this has been so opinions differ. Some think 

*Note: It is an open secret that we did not occupy Vera 
Cruz to avenge the "insult" to the flag, howsoever much some 
may so believe, but to stop the delivery of arms to Huerta by 
Germany. 



6 



it is because of a personal anxiety — vain hope — on 
the part of our chief executive to be persona grata 
to all the belligerents that the honor and dignity of 
being summoned as an arbiter of their destinies in 
some adjustment of their present difficulties may 
fall to his share. Some ascribe it to the personal 
views, as to what it deems a peaceful attitude, of 
the present administration, coupled with failure on 
its part to estimate the strength of existing limita- 
tions in the progress of the so-called civilized world 
towards actual civilization. Others of whom I con- 
fess I am inclined to be one, ascribe it to an acute 
misconception of the scope, extent and meaning of 
the doctrine and rules of "Neutrality" in interna- 
tional law on the part of those entrusted with the 
ultimate responsibilities for our "International" re- 
lations — to the wiiolly erroneous view that "Neu- 
trality" means "being impartial" — a comprehensive 
fundamental error usually made by those unex- 
perienced in affairs. 

This error, now shared by the public, en- 
tertained by this extraordinary administration 
of ours, grew out of the equally erroneous 
belief that " Neutrality' ' is largely a matter hav- 
ing relation to the individual citizens of this Ke- 
public in their capacity as such. The impression 
would appear to have been created by or to be to a 
great extent the result of the phrasing of the Procla- 
mations issued upon that subject at the outbreak of 
the present German War, and the expressions 
used since in communications and addresses. From 
it, in practice inconveniences arise. It hardly seems 
that it should be necessary to point out how errone- 
ous, are such views. A moment's consideration in- 
dicates that it is the "neutrality" of the United 
States not the "neutrality" of the individual citi- 



zens thereof which is contemplated by and em- 
braced within the term "Neutrality". Unfortu- 
nately the administration has been so concerned in 
the question of the neutrality of private citizens 
that it has on occasion forgotten or overlooked dis- 
tinct infringements of its own "Neutrality" which 
have occurred. 

A second proposition, in a sense a corollary of 
the foregoing, is also almost wholly disregarded, 
to wit : that so far as private citizens are con- 
cerned, neutrality as to them means, or if you 
choose consists, in their protection in and the op- 
portunity to exercise certain "rights". But this 
has been translated in the public mind into its 
antithesis, to wit : that endless "duties" are cast 
upon them and upon the country. It is somewhat 
difficult to see just where the private citizen can as 
to a belligerent nation produce an infraction of our 
"Neutrality" — he could, though with difficulty, as 
to us— but hardly as to a foreign Government. 
That is, he could pursue a course of conduct which 
would render it proper that we should restrain or 
punish him — lest because of our not disavowing 
and punishing, it might be thought that we offi- 
cially participated therein — but that would be dif- 
ficult. His worst efforts would probably constitute 
crimes, but in only a possible few cases could they 
be breaches of the "Neutrality" of the United 
States. The German-American meeting at Wash- 
ington, for example, was of seditious and treason- 
able tendencies, but was not an infraction of the 
"Neutrality" of the United States. On the other 
hand, our "Neutrality" can be — has been in this 
"German AVar" — infringed upon by individuals, 
subjects of the belligerent powers. 



8 



The true aspect of the question and the distinction 
between the two cases appears to have occurred to 
the administration only very recently — if even 
now. Take a clear example. Had a citizen blown 
up a boundary bridge it would have been merely a 
personal crime on his part, but the doing so by a 
subject of one of the belligerents was an infraction 
of our "Neutrality". The (quite foolish) fellow 
who did it indicated his entire misapprehension of 
the situation by announcing that he claimed protec- 
tion on the ground that it was "an act of war" — 
the very thing which constituted it an infraction of 
our Neutrality and rendered it fit that he be in- 
stantly surrendered without more ado. He claimed 
that he had used the territory of this neutral nation 
as a base for warlike operations. Had he searched 
the books for an unfortunate ground on which to 
rest his plea he could have found no worse an one. 

The administration does not understand this and 
allows him to be dragged round the country and 
tried for a lot of minor crimes — just as though he 
were a citizen — I suppose if he were a citizen the 
poor dear geese would surrender him to prove their 
neutrality — reason staggers before such reversals 
of comprehension ! 

Nor let it be imagined that that — which through 
our misapprehension of "Neutrality" — has occurred 
in the way of the establishment of unfortunate inter- 
national precedent and of our incurring respon- 
sibilities during the "German War" will vanish 
with its termination. For such errors in diplomacy 
or international law as we have made or may make 
a day of reckoning will come. It can hardly be 
hoped that in the future the nations of the world 
will be willing to allow us to assume the position 



9 

that the diplomatic history of the United States 
so far as written during the period of the "German 
War" is to be regarded as episodic and as neither 
constituting precedent nor creating liability. I 
sometimes wonder whether there is an appreciation 
in the State Department to-day of the fact that we 
have deliberately re-instated to our own detriment 
the mare clan sum doctrine. I can imagine Eng- 
lish statesmen in the coming years reading with 
a smile the phrase in our man Halleck, where he 
says : 

"No one would think now of reviving the 
"controversy which once occupied the pens 
"of the ablest European jurists with respect 
"to the right of any one State to appropriate 
"to its own use and to the exclusion of 
"others, any part of the open sea or ocean 
"beyond the immediate vicinity of its own 
"coast." 

Do not be alarmed, Hiram, the controversy has 
not been revived : for we cheerfully acquiesced in the 
upsetting and reversal of the long contended for and 
finally established doctrine of mare liberum — and 
this as the logical sequence of our failure to act at 
the one appropriate moment lest we offend Ger- 
many. We should be impartial forsooth, and let 
them all break all the rules they will — burn, mur- 
der, ravish and pillage indiscriminately lest we be 
thought to be "partial" first to one side then to the 
other. Then, when as the result of rule breaking- 
cherished doctrines go — forsooth they must — lest 
we be not "impartial". 

The history of the re-instatement of the mare 
elausum doctrine is painfully simple. We took no 
efficient action when England closed the North Sea. 



10 



This for the very simple reason that having com- 
mitted ourselves we could not. 

Germany planted mines in the high sea. Our 
fatal present doctrines — call them what you will : 
Non-interference, Mistaken Understanding of what 
Neutrality Consists in, Watchful Waiting, Im- 
partiality, or such other fantastic name as you may 
apply, or, as some say our desire to curry favor 
with each belligerent in turn by pretending that 
we are "friendly" to it — closed our mouths at the 
moment when vigorous action was demanded by 
every instinct which should prevail on such oc- 
casion and by the rules of Neutrality and Inter- 
national Law. 

England, under the doctrine of reprisal, 
retaliated. She planted mines in delimited 
areas of the high sea. Again we took no 
efficient action — we had taken our fatal position 
of acquiescence in infringement of our neutral 
rights. Germany undertook reprisal in her turn. 
She strewed floating mines, of a character and 
under circumstances in contravention of rule, in 
the high sea. Again we took no efficient action. 
As a forced reprisal and at the same time a safe- 
guard, as well to neutrals as for her own vessels, 
England declared the North Sea closed. We, as 
said above, took no efficient action. In other words, 
having closed our own mouths at the outset, having 
embarked upon a fundamentally erroneous course, 
we could nowhere thereafter find a point at which 
we could emerge from the false situation in which 
we had voluntarily placed ourselves. 

It took some hundreds of years to do away with 
the doctrine of mare clausum and substitute the 
doctrine of mare liberum. It took about as many 



11 



weeks to reverse the process. It would be hard to 
say whether we gave away the hard earned rights 
in the doctrine of mare liberum of all maritime 
and commercial countries unwittingly : whether we 
recognized the doctrine of mare elausum in ignor- 
ance of the fact of any such claim being open to 
question: or whether it is but another instance in 
the conduct of our public affairs of that which I 
have called our gradual assimilation of attitude 
to the attitude of China in the conduct of her in- 
ternational relations. If it be the latter be as- 
sured it will have similar result. But, through 
whatever unfortunate condition it occurred, it is 
to be deplored. 

The neutral nations have looked to us to defend 
not alone our, but all neutral rights — how have 
those rights fared at our hands? Where has there 
been recognition of the duty to safeguard even 
our own future position. Much less the rights of 
"Neutrals" at large. It is true that an amazing- 
aggression in every direction has characterized the 
actions of Germany from the outset and equally 
true that the resort to these devices of despair 
are more than liable to fail : but the precedents we 
have created by our supineness will remain, they 
will not vanish with the disappearance of the 
aggressor's power to do wrong. Another nation 
at another time will claim to do of rightful prece- 
dent that which Germany has done as the natural 
outcome of infernal teachings by her military 
despots and their adherents. When that time 
comes we shall be forced to do battle for our rights 
where had we had wise and foreseeing responsi- 
ble leadership at this critical period no one would 
for a moment attempt to employ such reactionary 
measures. 



12 



If I have spoken of our not "protesting'' bear in 
mind that it was not meant that action should be 
limited to protest if that were found unavailing. 
China has even more than ability in preparing well 
drawn protests and likewise ever been willing to 
limit effort by that bound. So indeed latterly have 
we. Let our manly protest at the "War Zone" de- 
cree and our humble acquiescence thereafter when 
we found that Germany really meant it, speak for 
us in witness thereof. As Lowell said our merit is 
proved by the dust on our knees. 

There is however, in spite of what I have said, 
one individual citizen of the United States who can 
by his private act if not commit an infraction of 
the Neutrality of the United States at least 
most greatly tend that way and this because of his 
representative character. I refer to the Chief Exec- 
utive, If he should for example (as it has been 
stated in the public prints, undoubtedly quite erro- 
neously, he would) attend the meeting on the 21st of 
May of the four hundred German Musical Societies 
of America and participate in singing those songs, 
patriotic from the German, unpatriotic from the 
American, point of view which will doubtless grace 
that occasion, it might be regarded as a distinctly 
unfriendly act — even though excusable in American 
eyes as a vote-getting device. I instance this pre- 
posterous report merely for the sake of contrast 
with the forbidding of the singing in our Navy of 
"Tipperary" — less it be regarded as or tend toward 
a breach of Neutrality. Such matters as these in 
fact have no relation to Neutrality nor to "Neutral 
Rights." 

As I have said Neutrality consists principally 
of neutral Rights scarcelv at all of neutral Duties. 



13 



But such neutral duties as are involved in the 
meaning of the word are firmly precise and it is 
worth consideration how we have or have not com- 
plied with them while wasting our thoughts and 
energy on those absurd matters, which have rela- 
tion merely to expression of personal opinion. First 
and foremost it should be said that in the last two 
weeks there has been an awakening in Washing- 
ton as to Neutral Duties after eight months of war. 
The Obenwald probably much to her amazement 
was actually fired upon to prevent her committing 
an infraction of our Neutrality, but the Kronprinz 
Wilhelm is still at sea where she proceeded with 
the capacity of constituting herself a commerce 
destroyer and where she has been largely main- 
tained as such through what appears to have been 
a supine neglect of one of our primary Neutral 
Duties. I wonder if it has occurred to the mind 
of the administration that there may be the mak- 
ing of an "Alabama Case" in this when the Euro- 
pean War is over. Again it is generally understood 
and believed that the Good Hope was sunk with 
the aid of American coal. It may be, indeed per- 
haps it should be, that we may find our excuse in 
the suddenness of the arising of the conflict, in the 
preparedness and thoroughness of the German 
plans, as opposed to our own entire lack of prepara- 
tion to comply with our Neutral Duties and the 
utter ignorance of the minor officials at various 
ports of what those duties consisted in. At best 
that will be a begging off. Had the promulgations 
of neutrality instead of taking the tone of warning 
each individual citizen not to have a private opin- 
ion, nor to express it, contained a warning to all 
the subordinate officers of the United States to 



14 



immediately make themselves conversant with the 
duties which had suddenly arisen, and to see to 
their prompt performance — in other words had 
there been the faintest conception of what "Neu- 
trality" means there might have been no need for 
excuses of the nature indicated. Meanwhile at- 
tention seems to have been directed in other and 
quite absurd directions. A banker for example 
was warned not to participate in making loans to a 
friendly power lest it should involve a breach of the 
Neutrality of the United States, because that 
friendly power happened to be at war! A most 
astounding proposition. By what process of rea- 
soning the supply of money to a belligerent by an 
individual citizen should be an infraction of our 
Neutrality when supplying unlimited arms, ammu- 
nition and Avar equipment of all kinds to any and 
all belligerents should not be so, it were difficult to 
say.* 

It is well that there should be an understanding 
in the public's mind of this question of neutrality; 
and when authoritative statements upon which the 
public ought to be able to rely are made by what 
should be the source of authority and are mean- 
while founded upon a total misconception it is 
regrettable. 

One further proof of the entertaining by this ad- 
ministration of the erroneous idea that impartiality 

*It was so funny that it aroused a curious interest to 
ascertain whence the abysmal error arose. There was no 
difficulty in ascertaining: a hasty turning of pages showed 
a most authoritative writer stating that loans by a neutral 
state to a belligerent were obnoxious to rule. The poor, in- 
nocent, deluded dears had either overlooked the word "state" 
in the text book or had omitted to turn over a couple of 
pages and note that no objection exists in the case of a 
citizen. But such an error is monstrous! It is incredible! 
It passes the bounds of belief! 



15 



and a desire to bring about peace are of the essence 
of "neutrality/' is afforded — to place the most 
charitable construction on very puzzling if not 
extremely questionable acts — by the fact of the em- 
ploying secret agents outside of the diplomatic rep- 
resentatives of the government with the belligerents 
— personal representatives of the Monarch one 
must assume. It is generally known that almost 
since the Mexican troubles began such an one has 
been with Villa and the activities of Mr. House 
first in London, now in Berlin are notorious. This 
is another way not to earn either the respect or the 
esteem of the belligerents or of the neutral nations. 
One of the most persistent demands of those who 
desire Peace has been for open diplomacy as its 
great safeguard. But we, have given the world a 
startling example of the discredited Jesuitical 
methods against which the best thought of the world 
has been contending in these matters. The results 
have been as might be expected in Mexico — lan- 
guage fails with which to characterize conditions 
there — and it is a more than safe prediction to say 
that it will tend to erroneously encourage Germany 
to contend after reasonable hope should be aban- 
doned. The employment of such measures is most 
earnestly to be deprecated. Any peace resulting 
therefrom — fortunately impossible — would be a 
mere breathing spell to prepare for new slaughter, 
meanwhile the false hope engendered will but 
amplify the present slaughter. It is an ignis fatmis 
which our Chief Executive follows — a remnant of 
that scholastic training which, he says, has con- 
stituted his only experience. What it leads to on 
our part is equally unfortunate: with the im- 
possible present hope, we are led to waive our 



ie> 



position as to our neutral rights lest we offend 
those whom we wish to influence to listen to our un- 
authorized, unaccredited and, frankly speaking, im- 
proper whisperings. The net result is that the just 
rights of our own people and of all other neutral 
nations are deliberately sacrificed in the mistaken 
hope of accomplishing what is wrongly thought to 
be a good end. All human experience is against the 
utility of such procedure. Two of our vessels 
are blown up by illegal mines — we roar as gently 
as any sucking dove. A commerce raider illegally 
sinks another of our ships — we entertain the com- 
mander of the sea-raider at the launching of one 
of our war vessels, coal him and repair him and 
give him opportunity to go to sea before we learn 
what reparation, if any, will be made. Our pass- 
ports are forged. Our territory used as base of war 
— but why continue : where there is striving for an 
improper end by indefensible means the maze of 
irregularities which result is familiar to all. If 
it be all for vote-getting, let us hope it will fail. If 
it is with a view to personal glory, it surely will 
fail. If it be honest error arising from inexperi- 
ence let us hope, my dear Hiram, that it will cease 
now that time for reflection on the great loss, not 
alone to the prestige of the country but to the 
future fame of the individual, has been afforded by 
the present duration of the German War. If that 
reflection should not bring complete change of 
point of view then let us hope that you will "rock 
the boat" to some purpose. 

Yours very truly, 

Chas. Stewart Davison. 

[3357S] 



w 



S0 

020 W4WM 



